Couldn't we get rid of most of Washington if we decided that we had enough "laws"?

Yes. There is a happy medium between authoritarianism and complete apathy. Each extreme fueling the other much like our contrived two party system
currently. It's, for lack of a better term, the secret sauce that holds and keeps the government in power and full of free money.

Cause we can't just handsomly pay congress to just sit around playing strip Uno and eating cheetos.
They have to "do" something.

Now, they could get to work digging through the absolute mountain of laws we have, getting rid of a bunch, streamling, combining, simplifying.
But that could actually make the country and living here better, and wouldnt be nearly as glamorous as having some incredibly stupid, useless, and
unneeded bill they sponsor get signed in to law. ("Yay! Look what I did!!")

So we pile. And pile more laws on the mountain. Forever. Till the sheer weight of it crushes the country to dust.

1. Laws are not there to infringe on our freedoms. They are there to protect them.

2. Laws are not infallible and should be constantly challenged and tested to ensure they are still relevant to societies ideology of the day.

3. If we did not have new laws, or a law system that constantly evolved then Slavery would still be legal, husbands would still have the right to beat
their wives, black people would still be using separate water fountains, disabled people would not get equal opportunities, etc.

4. An evolving law system with a separate judiciary and a legislative branch is one of the greatest aspects of our democracy. It evolved from the
signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 by King John ensuring that one person does not have dictorial power over their subjects, and is one of the greatest
and most influential documents in history. The American Constitution owes it a great deal.

1. Laws are not there to infringe on our freedoms. They are there to protect them.

Gun laws would say that this is a lie.

2. Laws are not infallible and should be constantly challenged and tested to ensure they are still relevant to societies ideology of the day.

Money and power determined this is a lie. Politicians, movie starts, athletes vs the common man and the price you can pay for a lawyer.

3. If we did not have new laws, or a law system that constantly evolved then Slavery would still be legal, husbands would still have the right to beat
their wives, black people would still be using separate water fountains, disabled people would not get equal opportunities, etc.

Now this is somewhat relevant and can be easily construed to be a social manipulation tool. So I pose a questions, if murder were absolutely legal,
would it be wrong?

4. An evolving law system with a separate judiciary and a legislative branch is one of the greatest aspects of our democracy. It evolved from the
signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 by King John ensuring that one person does not have dictorial power over their subjects, and is one of the greatest
and most influential documents in history. The American Constitution owes it a great deal.

I can agree with this. However, this doesn't point at what the OP outlines akin to new laws or existing laws.

I think that they need to start to remove the laws that are no longer legal or even needed in today's society.

And some just don't make sense at all. I think that much about the law, and the various laws out there, should be reviewed and those not needed
gotten rid of, cause they really cross the bounds of simple common sense, like not whistling under water. Here are a few that are still on the
books:

It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church. Or wake a sleeping bear to take a photo, or for a donkey to sleep in a bathtub.
How about mispronouncing the name of a state? Or not allowing for a frog to die during a frog jumping contest can not be eaten. And yes it is still
illegal to ride a horse under the influence. And a pickle can not be considered a pickle unless it bounces. An elephant tied to a parking meter
still has to be paid. Can’t keep an ice cream cone in the back pocket on Sundays. Coins are not allowed to be placed in one’s ears. Nor can one
give a sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 pounds. For those under the age, it is legal for them to drink as long as they are
enrolled in a culinary program. But mustaches are illegal if the bear has a tendency to habitually kiss other humans. One armed piano players must
perform for free. If 2 trains meet on the same track, neither shall proceed until the other has passed. You can be fined 500 for sending a pizza
order to someone’s house without his or her knowledge. One can not dye a duckling blue and offer it for sale unless there are more than 6 for sale
at once. And one can not be in a public park with a sleeveless shirt. Can’t keep up Christmas decorations after January 14, nor can one own an
explosive golf ball. Course woman can not cut their own hair without their husband’s permission. Nor may they cross state lines with a duck atop
their head. And cussing is out in some places with a fine. Don’t go driving with an uncaged bear. Course driving sheep on a railroad track with
the intent to injure the train is subject to fine and prison. Riding a camel on the highway is out, nor may a mother give her daughter a perm without
a state license.

So one half the bewildered herd can argue about them and thus remain oblvious to larger matters, while the other half can better bow and scrape in
submission (see Sadomasochistic Politics), while the other half of everyone has more
cause to cower in ignorance and apathy.

So one half the bewildered herd can argue about them and thus remain oblvious to larger matters, while the other half can bow and scrape to their in
submission (see Sadomasochistic Politics), while the other half of everyone has more
cause to cower in ignorance and apathy.

1. I'm not sure how gun laws disprove the first point. The protection of the right to bear arms is a law, but any laws made around the sale of
particular weapons, or checks into an individual are there to protect the general citizenry.

Personally I think that all guns should be illegal, but that's a different argument!

2. The legal profession and the legal system are two different entities. I'm arguing that it is our civic responsibility to live by the law, but
democratic duty to constantly examine and challenge laws that have become ideologically opposed to the views of the day.

I am an idealist, but pragmatic enough to realise that in practise money, power and influence can corrupt and pervert the law and justice system; but
that does not mean that we should abandon a system that is core to who we are as a democratic nation or society.

3. Your hypothetical is silly. Something like murder will never be legalized - there are checks and balances put into place in order to create new,
amend or delete current law. If on the other hand you had used an example such as marijuana instead it could have opened a wider philisophical
arguement where it is legal in some areas and illegal in others. Again - this is where the evolving system and ability to create new laws is
priceless. Careful and thorough analysis of those areas that have legalized it can be done informing and allowing other places to make choices that
best suits their own constituents. In a draconian society where laws are rigid and fixed then the quality of life can never improve. The flexibility
of our system allows for a much greater qualityof life.

It is not always perfect, and sometimes mistakes are made. But those mistakes can be changed and overturned due again to the nature of the system.
Thats why it is the best system in the world (not just the US but all countries with a separate legal system to that of government/monarchy)

4. It is highly relevant to the OP post as it gets to the root of why we create new laws. If we did not have the ability to re-shape, adapt and change
we would either have a country either trying to abide by laws written hundred of years ago, or be living under dictorial rule with whom ever is in
charge would be free to create any laws the wish.

Because humans in this day and age are generally bereft of goodness the gangsters in charge demand more laws. It is not that we “need” more laws.
Goodness does not need law! Law is simply a wal/l.

But to protect goodness the passionate and the ignorant gangs of men (and women) scramble to erect walls of law they believe protect their (idea) of
goodness. This is futile nonsense. The passionate are RED the ignorant are BLUE and the only WHITE which exists is beyond the flesh, beyond the
material, residing with the Supreme. We should follow His law.

But verily the mud puppets trudge along thinking they are erecting pure white walls (laws) of goodness. What to do? - but associate with neither red
nor blue and focus thine own heart on the Lord. That is my brand of patriotism and law abiding. In the meantime, let the ignorant and passionate
devour each other making all the laws they believe need be. Their actions will never corrupt the goodness which lies beyond the material plane.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.